the idea is - if balance becomes to 300% war should NOT be finished immediately - opponent should be allowed to make one turn may be he has chance to fix the situation and only if 300% balance holds for 2 turns in row game finishes.
Because this auto-finish at 300% was supposed to mean that enemy has not chance to win - but this is not so because sometimes this result can be reached by just invading enemy countries NOT capturing
look at this replay of my game with grtbrt.i not captured anything but just invaded four at once - balance became 300% and i won..look i moved into his main country only ONE TANK WITH TWO HITS!! it's pretty sure that he could easily destroy it on next turn - but war finished already
and btw if somebody captures and empty country but there are guerillas yet to appear - such a country should NOT affect the balance !

I agree with mrakobes, or at the very least the calculation on % should be tweeked. On several occasions I've won at 300% when it was actually a much closer battle than it seemed. On one of my games all my resources were used up, but my opponenet still had several countries with 10 turns remaining that he had just captured. Even though I had a large advantage in territory, I only had a very small advantage in units and no hope for producing any more units unless I captured his countries and got indemnity. But it would have been very likely that he would have been able to delay my attack and eventually slowly beat me back and take over my territories 1 by 1. However, realizing that my only chance was to attack right away and try to get indemnity, I invaded all his countries at once. This move put me over 300% and I won. Maybe I would have won anyways, but I don't think so, he would have had to have made some bad mistakes. . .

I'm in two minds about this.

When one side gets to 300% it usually means that they have a prety good chance of winning eventually.

But I agree that it doesn't make sense to be awarded points for capturing a neutral teritory with a transport, when the guarillas will simply kill it next turn.

I admit that I sometimes build 2 or 3 transports around the plannt and capture all remaining neutrals at the same time so that I can reach 300%, but I would usually have won anyway. I just do this to spead things up when a surrender is not forthcoming.

I don't think the current system is a problem as long as both players understand the rules. If they do, they can usually prevent an unfair loss, unless one side is clearly superior.

Perhaps a system where if your opponent still has 300% after your turn you should lose as opposed to your opponent winning on his turn would be better?

Actually I would rather it was removed all together. The number of territories means nothing if all their money supply has gone. I was fighting a hard battle on one level where both me and my opponent were out of money. I was down to my last 3 units an APC and 2 rocket launchers and was doing hit and runs on my opponent who only had a few tanks and some fodder. I had finally cleared out a sector and was about to take the capitol for the money bonus and it went game over.

If anything it should give a notice to surrender or something, but not instant game overs.

Ok now this has to go. I was doing that scenario "surprise" i think its called. Now I owed my right starting country and the one above it that you were supposed to capture, my country on the left and the one above it were both under siege but i never lost them. Now in the forest between my two starting countries i had 4 rocket launchers, 2 mechs and lines of fodder. Suffice it to say i was tearing the enemy apart, rows after rows of their units fell and then all of a sudden... "Defeat!" Now i dont even know why the hell i lost so i assume it must be the 300% rule, but thats strange because they didnt capture any more countrys, i had meant to save a replay but i must have clicked the wrong button because when i went to upload it, it wasnt there. If there is one thing I absolutely cant stand in life is repeating stuff i've already done! Especially when I should have never lost in the first place.

on some of the scenarios u have to have invaded set countries wihtin so many turns. On one where u had to invade an island i sat back blowing up units fromr ange and lost after 3 turns due to the enemy having complete control of the country still. Atho would be nice if you are told how many turns you have to break the enmies hold.

They never had control of the countries in my level, I always had at least about 4 units in each.

To Auran:

Please attach the replay of your game on that scenario so we would have a look on it. Enforcer is right saying you have to keep certain countries under your control in order to not get lost.

To Enforcer: There's no turn limitation for finishing scenario. It's only the Territory control issue.

Attached please find the replay for Surprise scenario by myself.

Sincerely,
Nick

Unfortunately I hit cancel instead of save for the replay, but i've passed the level now anyway. I'm starting to think it was a bug because when I completed it the second time i used the exact same strategy but it didnt say i failed. I'm pretty sure it happened on the same turn that the enemy ran out of revenue turns so maybe that has something to do with it.

I'm having the same problem on Trident? (I think thats the name of the level, the second last one anyway.) It even says in the hints to abandon some countries to focus your defence in one area. Well i pulled most of my forces to the country on the left. (The 18 indemenity one, because i'll be damned if i give the computer that.) But when I did it said i had failed even though i had a considerable force in that sector.

Yeah, Trident was tough; it took me three attempts to beat that scenario. I did the same thing as you on the first attempt because of the hint and when I did, lost the scenario.

Edit: BTW, I agree about the 300% holding out for 2 consecutive turns, it's possible that the 300% could be only a temporary situation and the battle is not won; may in fact turn the other direction. But on the other hand, it is also a valid strategy: Spread your forces thin in an attempt to gain 300% and win. A very risky strategy if you don't reach 300%.

As it is, as long as the rules are clear, and they are, you can plan your strategy according to how much risk you're willing to take.

Jones it is niot valid strategy it's kinda cheating...that's why majority of players dont want to play on Wasserland - regardless of how good you fight you can just lose due to absolutely impredictable balance fluctuations.

I can see your point, the same thing had crossed my mind. I think playing to win that way kind of goes against the intent of the the designed play of the game.

I can't say how it works out online either or if it is enough of a factor. I haven't played online against another player yet. I've only completed the scenarios and the world wars and haven't even played the campaigns yet.

I agree that this strategy really takes away from the kind of game Massive Assault is. It doesn't take any skill to send 12 transports around the map for a sudden win.

There have been times that I have been really close to losing in percentage, but I had a huge advantage in unit numbers and position, and a real chance of winning the game. Fortunately my opponents haven't used that tactic in those situations, but if someone did, they would have won in a cheap way.

i've never seen anyone try that. or havn't done it myself.